Talk:Snow Cruiser
I feel it would be better to merge the individual pages on the three Snow Cruisers into this one, given there's barely anything to say about two of them. Evil Tim (talk) 12:52, October 28, 2018 (UTC) :I would argue that Centurion definitely deserves its own independent article. For consistency I made Cavalier and Comet their own individual articles as well, but maybe one can make the argument of moving the contents within those two pages into this article, and make them redirects... But generally I think separate articles is better. -User:PanSola(talk/ ) 05:58, October 29, 2018 (UTC) ::See I was planning to do this... Evil Tim (talk) 03:29, October 31, 2018 (UTC) :::I think the article in its current state approaches the other extreme of being too large, and should be trimmed down and/or broken up into separate articles... In particular, the "Operational History" section has too much detail about the overall Operation Cygnus that do not directly concern the cruisers. The full plot of chapters 8 and onwoards should be outside the scope of this article (ok to be fair the current article only has 98% of the plot of chapter 8 and onwards). While finding the perfect balance is never easy to find, a good rule of thumb is should stay focused on the snow cruisers themselves. If three sentences in a row do not use the snow cruiser as the subject or the object of the sentence, maybe (not always) that is a sign to adjust the perspective the narrative is told from. -User:PanSola(talk/ ) 18:21, October 31, 2018 (UTC) :::Picking an arbitrary sentence as an example: This ability to anticipate the Cygnus Fleet's course allowed a force including Walz, Crymaria Levin, Chiara Rocino and Nikola Graf to lay a trap for the Comet, the vessel ending up caught with her stern in a pit trap and unable to move. :::From the perspective of the operation history of snow cruisers, perhaps the name of the force matters (X-0), perhaps the name of the commander leading of the force matters (though in this event I tend towards not), perhaps the individual being responsible for a disproportional amount of damage dealt to Comet matters, but I would argue Chiara Rocino and Nikola Graf being members of the force do not matter from the perspective of the snow cruiser article (whereas they would matter if there's a dedicated article detailing the events of that battle). -User:PanSola(talk/ ) 18:33, October 31, 2018 (UTC) :::Btw I've copied over much of the "Operation History" section (with some edits) over to a new article Valkyria Chronicles 4/Plot, since a lot of the details make sense at that scope. I'll try to find time to mold this article to be more immediately relevant to the scope of snow cruisers (which highly overlaps, but is still slightly different from, the scope of Operation Cygnus). -User:PanSola(talk/ ) 19:46, October 31, 2018 (UTC) ::::Actually you won't do that, you'll discuss the changes here because you'll go to my user page and notice it says "admin" there. ::::As for your other suggestions, this article is completely unsuited to being used as a plot summary (because it skips all the character development that forms the heart of the story: I mean come on, it mentions Raz once by name), and it's kind of needed to mention Chiara and Nikola when they first appear because we're going to mention them later and it saves us having to say they work for Belgar then and have been around the whole time. When you have a group of people, all of whom are part of the same unit, you might as well introduce them when you introduce the unit rather than piecemeal. ::::I would suggest you focus more on the myriad articles which do not have enough information, continue to use fan translated names, or do not exist at all. We should not be having a discussion about an article with too much content while Cactus still comes out as a red link. Evil Tim (talk) 00:07, November 1, 2018 (UTC) :::::Just for clarification, does your "Actually you won't do that" mean that I should no longer edit this article (without discussing first)? or that I should not be creating new articles (without discussing first)? or something else? -User:PanSola(talk/ ) 19:53, November 1, 2018 (UTC) ::::::The part I'm referring to is the "molding this article to be more immediately relevant." I'd rather you spent that time molding other vital articles to contain any information at all. You're fine creating new articles as long as they're not just content cannibalised from existing articles: we still don't even have articles for the whole of Squad E, or important gameplay concepts like Squad Stories. Evil Tim (talk) 06:54, November 2, 2018 (UTC)